Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

439 ITR 168High Court2021#4054 most cited

What is Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT authority for?

When reassessment proceedings are initiated more than four years after the relevant assessment year, the revenue must demonstrate a failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ananta Landmark · section 147 · section 148 · failure to disclose material facts · true and full disclosure · jurisdictional requirement · reassessment after four years · AY

Also reported as

283 Taxmann 462

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69CSection 68Section 10(38)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 100section 153(c)(1)section 94full and true disclosureabatement of assessmentmaterial facts necessary for assessmentanonymous donationfresh tangible materialkelvinatorsection 153(c)strategic investment

Judgments citing Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

Global Green Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3898/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…assessment, reassessment could not have been initiated for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del); ii) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del); iii) Ananta Landmark P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 439 ITR 168 (Bom); iv) Noshir Darabshaw Talati v DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 498 (Bom); & v) Space Capital Services Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 148 Taxman 44 (Del Trib.) 3.2 The ld. DR has, however, supported the findings of the ld. tax authorities. 3.3 As we appreciate the matter on record, it comes up that the basis of reopening is purely the information and doc…

Global Green Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3913/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…assessment, reassessment could not have been initiated for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del); ii) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del); iii) Ananta Landmark P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 439 ITR 168 (Bom); iv) Noshir Darabshaw Talati v DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 498 (Bom); & v) Space Capital Services Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 148 Taxman 44 (Del Trib.) 3.2 The ld. DR has, however, supported the findings of the ld. tax authorities. 3.3 As we appreciate the matter on record, it comes up that the basis of reopening is purely the information and doc…

Global Green Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3912/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…assessment, reassessment could not have been initiated for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del); ii) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del); iii) Ananta Landmark P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 439 ITR 168 (Bom); iv) Noshir Darabshaw Talati v DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 498 (Bom); & v) Space Capital Services Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 148 Taxman 44 (Del Trib.) 3.2 The ld. DR has, however, supported the findings of the ld. tax authorities. 3.3 As we appreciate the matter on record, it comes up that the basis of reopening is purely the information and doc…

Global Green Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3911/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…assessment, reassessment could not have been initiated for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del); ii) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del); iii) Ananta Landmark P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 439 ITR 168 (Bom); iv) Noshir Darabshaw Talati v DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 498 (Bom); & v) Space Capital Services Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 148 Taxman 44 (Del Trib.) 3.2 The ld. DR has, however, supported the findings of the ld. tax authorities. 3.3 As we appreciate the matter on record, it comes up that the basis of reopening is purely the information and doc…

Global Green Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 3910/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Ankit AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…assessment, reassessment could not have been initiated for which he has relied on the following:- i) CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del); ii) Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 343 ITR 141 (Del); iii) Ananta Landmark P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 439 ITR 168 (Bom); iv) Noshir Darabshaw Talati v DCIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 498 (Bom); & v) Space Capital Services Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 148 Taxman 44 (Del Trib.) 3.2 The ld. DR has, however, supported the findings of the ld. tax authorities. 3.3 As we appreciate the matter on record, it comes up that the basis of reopening is purely the information and doc…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jagannathdas Harichandmal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 106/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.106/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan: Aaccj2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, Dated 16.03.2022 Which In Turn Arises From The Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.12.2018 For A.Y.2012-13. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, While Holding Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of Act As Invalid & Void-Ab-Initio, The Ld. Cit(A) Completely Ignored The Fact That During The Course Of Survey, The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Burden In Establishing 'The Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions As Required U/S 68 Of The Income Tac Act. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Reassessment Proceeding Are Based On Fresh Facts/Information Rather Than Change Of Opinion. 2. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring That Confirmation Of Concealment Of Income/Disclosure Made In Statement Recorded During Survey U/S 133A Of Act Is An Information, Though Not Conclusive, Which May Be Used In Regular Assessment Or Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.106/RPR/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs M/s. Jagannathdas Harichandmal Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Sadar Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) PAN: AACCJ2840G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR सुनव…

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2013] 349 ITR 76 (Bombay) (iii) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) (308 ITR 195) (Bombay) (iv) Kalpataru Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 284 (Bombay) (v) Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 168 (Bombay) 7. In addition to above, Ld. AR has also stated that when the subject matter is in appeal, reassessment notice cannot be issued, reassessment notice is based upon borrowed satisfaction and reopening for examining another aspect/facet of same issue/claim already examined during original assessment, is not permissible. 8. On the other ha…

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 374 ITR 485 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2013] 349 ITR 76 (Bombay) (iii) Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) (308 ITR 195) (Bombay) (iv) Kalpataru Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 284 (Bombay) (v) Ananta Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2021] 439 ITR 168 (Bombay) 7. In addition to above, Ld. AR has also stated that when the subject matter is in appeal, reassessment notice cannot be issued, reassessment notice is based upon borrowed satisfaction and reopening for examining another aspect/facet of same issue/claim already examined during original assessment, is not permissible. 8. On the other ha…

Society for Appllied Microwave Electronic Engineering & Research, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 430/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…activities. Therefore, there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose clearly about the object of the assessee. In this regard he relied on the decision of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., v. ITO [41 ITR 191 (SC)] and Ananta Landmark P. Ltd. v. DCIT [439 ITR 168 (Bom)]. 13. Ld. AR submitted his second proposition that Assessing Officer has to disclose what information was not submitted by the assessee. In this regard he relied on the Ananta Landmark P. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra). In this regard he brought to our notice Page No. 18 of the Paper Book wherein the Assessing Officer has not mentioned about the fai…